I like how people are complaining about the one game playoff because of issues they have with divisions. I think it's working pretty well this year. a lot of intrigue going into the final week.
Art Vandelay wrote:162 games is far too small of a sample size to be able to draw any meaningful conclusions. The only fair way to do it would be to play a 10-year, 1,620 game season, then at the end of the decade you award the team with the best record the World Series trophy. You could still give the trophy out every year, but each year would be based on a decade's worth of games. So the 2012 World Series goes to the team with the best record from 2003-2012. For 2013, you go back to 2004 to start aggregating records, etc. That would prevent fluke teams like this year's Orioles from having a chance at winning baseball's most coveted trophy. Why should a team that has a decade-long run of futility get to compete for the World Series just because of a good 162 games. Ridiculous. Also, for teams that are strong over a period of many years, having one down year due to injuries and back luck (think: 2012 Red Sox) won't doom them and prevent them from being able to compete year in and year out for the championship. I don't care about these upstarts who string together a few dozen good games once a decade. I want long-term, sustained excellence.
The way I see it is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot, anyway, so I'm OK with the one-game playoff.
What difference does it really make whether you eliminate teams in a one-game playoff as opposed to a seven-game playoff? There's a huge amount of randomness and luck involved in either case.
mweir145 wrote:I need vulture saves tomorrow. But where to get them? Stammen, perhaps. Benoit? Javier Lopez has gotten a few this year.
The dodger's don't really have multiple lefties in a row in the line up so Lopez getting a save is pretty unlikely. Also the Giants probably won't use Affeldt/Casilla/Lopez/Romo since they used them all tonight and the game doesn't mean anything tomorrow. I could see someone like Kontos or Machi getting a shot at it if a save opp pops up.
Stammen and Benoit seem like solid options. As do Mujica, Boggs, O'Flaherty since the Cardinals and Braves have nothing to play for.
mweir145 wrote:The way I see it is that the playoffs are largely a crapshoot, anyway, so I'm OK with the one-game playoff.
What difference does it really make whether you eliminate teams in a one-game playoff as opposed to a seven-game playoff? There's a huge amount of randomness and luck involved in either case.
Giving a bye to 6 teams and making 4 others play an extra round is as much an issue as the fact it's only one game. Especially when the 4 teams in danger of being forced to play an extra round happen to be the top 4 teams in the league while the 7th best team is guaranteed a bye. From a fan (and financial) standpoint, it's also a pretty big letdown to have your team dominate all season only to be bumped out after a single playoff game. I suppose all of this is the same as the NFL, which I'm not a fan of at all, so maybe that's why everybody seems to like it.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by kab21 » Tue Oct 02, 2012 10:04 pm 
And we now essentially have a one-game playoff tomorrow to decide the AL West. Rangers seem to be in a bit of trouble.
